#fantheories

[meiishu]

i have a theory on wylan and kaz in shadow and bone (the show)

Contains major spoilers for six of crows book if you havent read that and dont want spoilers about wylans backstory keep scrolling!

Rewatching episode 2 and im at the scene where the crows are at the diner, and kaz is teling the others that they cant just kill rollins. When kaz says “killing him wont clear our names…. and then we wont be able to protect you” he looks right at wylan who flinches back. I didnt catch it on my first watch (interpreted it as him talking to both wylan and nina in general) but now my brain is whirring

I think that, if we get the ice court heist, we are going to learn that wylan struck a deal with kaz for protection when he left his fathers home. If they stick as close to the book as possible for his backstory, then wylans dad tried to have him killed because he was in jan van ecks words “an embarrassment”. So when wylan escapes his fathers hired hands in the books he is protected by kaz *because* kaz knows who he is and decides to enlist the dregs protection on him since he thinks a merchers son could be useful

However

In the show, kaz doesnt run the dregs, i believe he just ran the crow club (evidenced by him first meeting and striking a deal with per husksoll in the early episodes of season 2). He wouldn’t have had the means or the power to just decide to protect this random boy who showed up in the barrel without a reason for it, even if he thought he might be useful someday

So i believe in the show, after he escaped his fathers hired help, wylan found kaz and struck a deal with him for protection from his father. And so in exchange, kaz can go to wylan for the bombs he needs, even though wylan doesn’t *really* want to help because he doesnt like what kaz uses them for. This would set up:

A) kaz knows wylans true identity. Hes always known since before even season one and also this is how kaz and wylan are already on personal terms AND how kaz knows he can trust the things wylan makes for him despite wylan’s reluctance to help

B) wylan’s hostage moment in the ice court heist. Although in the books its kind of surprising to the whole crows that jan van eck actually doesnt miss or care about wylan, the show could deviate slightly from this, or kaz could figure out the truth but not tell anyone and use it as his plan to expose jan van eck especially if jan tries to pull the pity card for his son

C) when it does come out that wylan is a van eck, especially since jesper doesnt know, when jesper finds out that kaz knew the whole time i can see that causing a huge rift between them, especially if kaz planned to use wylan as bait and *especially* if wesper is in an established relationship. Not only would jesper be upset if wylan volunteered himself for this, but that kaz even tried this at all when he knows that wesper is together. It will feel like such a betrayal to jesper. *especially* if the show has kaz almost coerce wylan *into* being bait — although i lean more towards wylan volunteering himself because i feel as though he would do that knowing kaz’s plan. Plus, wylan and kaz working together to one up jan??? PLEASE

Sorry for ranting on main cant help it im in shadow and bone brainrot i need the ice court heist and wylans backstory SO BADLY s&b NEEDS to be renewed

Also i just want to say that i highkey LOVE that wesper will be an established relationship going into the ice court heist. We have slow burn with kanej and helnik and certain scenes will hit so much harder with wesper as an established relationship. I cant wait to see how the show takes their story from here tbh since now we’re very deviating away from the books

[allegorymetaphory]

I'm not convinced Jean Jacket is an ET. I think it's the real apex predator of Earth, home grown.

The species could have been around a long time and we wouldn't know it because of how they hide and camouflage. Plus, the nature of the beast is such that if you see it you die. If you don't die, nobody believes you. The secret continues.

The nature of predators is to be territorial, and OJ proved it was. For a creature that can casually break the sound barrier, that territory must be huge.

Predators are generally vastly outnumbered by their prey.

If it couldn't handle a big balloon popping inside it, I doubt it could withstand the vacuum of outer space.

I think the evidence is on my side. Jean Jacket is no alien. Jean Jacket and its kin belong here. There's one in your area.

What do you think?

[purplepanda-marvel-leaks]

WHAT IF...? S3

The episode that will revisit characters from Season 1 is a continuation to What If… Thor Were an Only Child?

More details soon...👀

[pop-theories]

Batman is a mutant

[illuminatingfacts]

✨ Ever heard the wildest theory about *Bewitched*? 🧙‍♀️ Fans once believed Samantha’s magical antics were tied to a secret society! Dive deep into the wildest theories and what made this classic tick. #Bewitched #FanTheories #ClassicTV https://mentalitch.com/what-was-the-craziest-fan-theory-about-bewitched/

[superhgb]

i'm going on a classpecting binge, please send me your theories, tag me, or send me your favorite theory posts

[themovieblogonline]

🚨 New Video Alert! 🚨 Dive into the "FROM" Season 3 Trailer Breakdown!

Hey, FROM fanatics! 🎬 We're back with an in-depth analysis of the mind-bending "FROM" Season 3 trailer! 🤯 If you're as excited as we are about the upcoming season, you won't want to miss this breakdown.

🔍 What's inside?

Theories about that eerie skeleton 🦴

Analysis of Boyd's mysterious mission 🚶‍♂️

Decoding the new character played by Robert Joy 🎭

The significance of that cow 🐄 and much more!

We explore every clue, every twist, and every theory that will have you on the edge of your seat until the premiere on Sept 22nd. 📅 Whether you're a die-hard fan or new to the series, this video has something for everyone!

🎥 Watch now and join the conversation: [YouTube Link]

🔔 Don't forget to follow us for more deep dives, theories, and all things "FROM"! Let's unravel the mysteries together! 🌌

[gidiburst]

Jodi Picoult: “It’s no honour for a book to be banned”

[taqato-alim]

Analysis of: "If I Ran Marvel..." entertainment commentary/criticism by Dan Murrell

In the following text the term "document" refers to the subtitles of the video.

Summary of the discussion:

The genre of the document is entertainment commentary/criticism based on its informal, analytical tone and focus on the MCU.

It demonstrates strong knowledge of its subject matter and presents its critique in an engaging, well-structured manner.

The perspective presented is an idealistic, constructive vision from a passionate fan's perspective.

Some arguments could be strengthened by addressing counterarguments and alternative views more directly.

Implementing the proposals may benefit fans and creative talent most but risks short-term financial impacts.

Strategies like enforced rewatching or divorcing business from creativity have limitations and risks.

Moderate, balanced approaches that consider stakeholders and complexity may have higher chances of success.

The author's personality seems to be that of an creative, enthusiastic visionary focused on improvements.

Overall evaluations found reasoned arguments but also opportunities to qualify statements, address challenges, and strengthen logical reasoning and evidence.

Here is a summary of the document in bullet points:

The speaker is pretending to be Kevin Feige, head of Marvel Studios, and discussing what they would do if they were put in charge of Marvel

They would stop all current production except for projects already in late stages, and re-evaluate planned projects

Everyone at Marvel would rewatch all previous MCU movies to analyze what worked and didn't work

Future projects would go back to focusing on individual heroes and their stories before setting up larger crossovers

All ideas would be eligible for exploration without being ruled out due to past failures or other factors

Creative decisions would not be based on marketing or financial factors like release dates

Major characters like the Avengers would be given a break from team-up movies

New focus would be on rebooting properties like Fantastic Four, X-Men, and Spider-Man

The multiverse concept introduced in movies would be fully leveraged through one-off crossover projects

Budgets would match projects' actual needs rather than being excessively large by default

Reshoots would only be used to improve existing projects, not rewrite entire scripts late in production

Future plans would slowly be hinted at without being rigidly locked in

No more than 3 movies and 3 Disney+ shows would be released per year to avoid oversaturation

Based on the content and style of the document, I would classify its genre as entertainment commentary/criticism.

Some evidence that supports this:

The speaker is providing their perspective and commentary on Marvel Studios and the MCU, criticizing some past direction and offering suggested changes.

It has an informal and conversational tone, but analyzes creative decisions and business strategies in detail like a film critique might.

It references specific movies, shows, characters and storylines from the MCU to support points, demonstrating knowledge of the material being discussed.

The purpose seems to be entertainment and starting a discussion about Marvel, rather than strictly informative like a work of journalism might be.

It is posted on a YouTube channel focused on movie reviews and commentary, suggesting this genre of entertainment commentary.

The style is presenting an imagined scenario ("What if I ran Marvel?") which invites critique and debate, rather than stating facts.

So in summary, while it touches on business and creative aspects, the primary genre is entertainment commentary/criticism - evaluating and opining on a popular media franchise from the perspective of a knowledgeable fan. The target audience seems to be other passionate MCU fans.

Based on the information and perspective presented in the document, here is an evaluation of the situation of the MCU:

Both critical and commercial success appear to be declining based on specific films and shows cited as disappointments. Data supports box office declines.

Fan enthusiasm may be drifting as well, supported by need to "rekindle passion" and make properties essential viewing again.

Overly relying on crossovers and large-scale team up movies risks repetition and dilution of character/story importance.

Quantity over quality with high output may be saturating the market and lowering demand. Movie theater struggles support this view.

Lack of strong singular hero/property focus risks characters becoming generic cogs in a machine vs compelling individuals.

Reshoot-heavy production implies some planning/writing flaws as creative process extends into costly post-production.

However, some high points still exist like Spiderman:NWH suggesting market potential remains if executed correctly.

Overall, while still a lucrative franchise, credible evidence suggests the MCU is facing serious challenges to sustained quality, audience appetite and cultural relevance if course is not corrected. The diagnosis seems a reasonably accurate portrayal of real issues potentially facing the shared universe model long term.

Here are some of the key stakeholders that could be affected by the proposals in this document and an evaluation of the impacts:

Marvel/Disney executives - Major changes proposed could impact business strategy and planning. Both risks and rewards discussed if creativity/quality improve.

MCU creative team (writers, directors, producers) - Freer creativity suggested but also pressure to meet loftier goals. Potential for burnout with tighter limits and "rewatch week".

MCU actors - Less steady work opportunities with fewer projects in production at once. But potentially more beloved/compelling roles.

Movie theater chains - Potential upside if proposed changes boost box office. But risks with fewer guaranteed tentpoles spread evenly year-round.

Marvel fans - Clear prioritization of fan experience/satisfaction. Proposals aim to rekindle passion and demand for future projects.

General moviegoing public - Broader relevance depends on commercial success of proposed changes appealing beyond hardcore fans.

Disney+ subscribers - Suggested emphasis on quality over quantity for streaming shows impacts service value proposition.

Overall, while challenging stakeholders like executives, the proposals generally seem aimed at prioritizing the sustainment of creative talent/passion and enhancing theater and audience experiences long-term. However, precise impacts would depend greatly on execution of ambitious vision discussed. Risks and rewards seem reasonably balanced across parties.

Here is an evaluation of the idea of everyone at Marvel rewatching all previous MCU movies:

Potential benefits:

Provides a holistic perspective on the entire narrative across films/shows that individual projects may lack in isolation.

Allows identification of broader tonal, character, and storytelling trends across the universe at a macro-level.

Encourages collaborative analysis and discussion that incorporates varied roles/viewpoints within the company.

May surface insights not apparent from single viewings or strictly relying on past analyses/reviews.

Potential limitations:

Time intensive process that could hamper ongoing work for creatives and executives with full schedules.

Subjective interpretations may vary significantly between individuals affecting consensus.

Earlier films may appear dated and be reevaluated through a modern lens rather than context of release.

Difficult to systematically catalog learnings in an actionable creative brief from such a marathon.

Risks of fatigue, diminishing returns on later rewatches in a binge format.

Overall, a rewatch endeavor could yield some dividends but may be challenging to implement effectively across a large company in a tangible way that directly guides future plans. A more targeted, facilitated analysis amongst key creative roles may prove more fruitful.

Here is an evaluation of the idea of creative decisions not being based on marketing or financial factors:

Potential benefits:

Allows creative vision/storytelling to take priority over commercial imperatives which could improve artistic quality.

Reduces risk of projects being rushed or altered purely to serve release date/marketing windows.

Gives filmmakers more freedom which may increase job satisfaction and ability to attract top talent.

Potential limitations:

Removes important business considerations that impact investment decisions and revenue/profitability.

Release schedule and marketing strategies are still major factors for audience awareness and box office potential.

May lead to disjointed long-term planning without any business oversight of creative output levels.

Difficult to execute fully given scale of MCU as a major commercial operation rather than solely an artistic endeavor.

Risk of ballooning budgets without fiscal responsibility or rationale for release timing/pacing.

Overall, striving for more balance between creative and commercial priorities rather than a total divorce from business realities may be a more pragmatic approach for a blockbuster franchise operation. Some coordination is likely still needed.

Here is an evaluation of leveraging the multiverse through one-off crossover projects:

Potential benefits:

Allows for fresh matchups and stories not possible in main continuity. Could excite fans.

Provides opportunities to utilize beloved characters in new contexts.

Lowers risk profile of each project since success is not essential to larger narrative.

Testing ground for ideas that could inform future plans if successful.

Potential limitations:

May dilute importance and impact of crossovers if overused in a non-essential format.

Risk of disjointedness or lacking synergies if not carefully coordinated long-term.

Securing rights agreements across studios/IPs adds complexities for partnerships.

Each project requires full development/production which strains resources if not managed carefully.

Demand uncertain without obvious connection to ongoing story or characters audiences follow regularly.

Overall, one-offs could work if used judiciously to build hype but Marvel's strengths have been longform storytelling. Leveraging the multiverse most effectively may require balance between self-contained projects and those driving a larger narrative. Strategic coordination would still be needed.

Here is an evaluation of the idea of limited reshoots only for improvement rather than rewriting:

Potential benefits:

Ensures scripts are thoroughly developed before filming begins, avoiding costly structural issues late in the process.

Promotes a properly planned, organized production cycle rather than rushing aspects.

Filmmakers and actors will be executing a cohesive vision developed during pre-production.

Budgets and schedules can be managed better without unpredictable late additions.

Potential limitations:

Allows less flexibility to course-correct major flaws discovered during post-production editing.

Risk that minor polishing reshoots still spiral into excessive workload if not tightly controlled.

Creative flexibility is limited even if some rewriting could genuinely strengthen a project.

May stifle innovation that occasionally occurs through non-linear creative processes.

Overall, striving for more thoroughly developed scripts makes sense, but a total ban on any rewriting could also hinder improvement in some cases. Clear guidelines and oversight would help strike a balance between structure and flexibility.

Here is an evaluation of releasing no more than 3 movies and 3 Disney+ shows per year:

Potential benefits:

Reduces risk of audience fatigue/loss of excitement from an overabundance of cross-promoted content.

Forces higher selective curation and spacing to boost desirability/hype of individual projects.

More development time may improve creative quality by avoiding strained pipelines.

Fewer concurrent productions means capacity for higher budgets on focused projects.

Potential limitations:

Revenue stream becomes less predictable with fewer guaranteed annual tentpoles/shows.

Talent/resources are not fully utilized if pipelines are intentionally kept under capacity.

Third-party platforms may see the MCU as less integral/impactful with reduced exclusive output.

Risk that some creatives will seek work elsewhere if opportunities are more limited.

Overall, moderation does seem prudent given quality concerns, but a total threshold may be overly restrictive and limit commercial upside if demand remains high. Flexibility based on monitored audience reactions could be balanced.

Here is an evaluation of who may profit and not profit from the ideas presented in the document:

Potentially profit:

Fans/general audience - With a renewed focus on quality storytelling and characters, engagement and enjoyment could increase.

Creative talent - Greater freedom and emphasis on original concepts may boost job satisfaction.

Marvel/Disney (long term) - Improved quality leading to enduring fan passion and box office could outweigh short term risks.

Potentially not profit:

Marvel/Disney (short term) - Fewer guaranteed tentpoles annually means less predictable revenue streams in transition.

Movie theaters - Loss of volume of assured blockbuster content could dampen box office until demand is reinvigorated.

Product/retail partners - Slower pace of new films/shows impacts merchandising and licensing opportunities.

Shareholders - Short term financial impacts from changes may not be welcomed on balance sheets.

Executives - Significant shifts in strategy open the company up to increased risks in an unstable period.

Overall, while creative talent and fans stand to benefit most, corporate stakeholders prefer stability. The proposal aims for long term profits but transitions inherently carry risks disrupting business as usual in the short term for those prioritizing predictable revenue. Quality improvements may eventually outweigh all costs if successfully executed.

Based on the content and style of the document, I would characterize the perspective it presents as:

Passionate fan perspective: The speaker clearly loves the MCU and wants it to succeed long-term, coming from a place of fandom rather than detached analysis.

Constructive criticism: While identifying flaws, the goal seems to be offering solutions to get Marvel back on track rather than just negativity.

Engaged viewer perspective: References experiences watching the movies/shows, critiquing them as an attentive audience member invested in the quality of storytelling.

Idealistic creative vision: The proposals imagine envisioning Marvel with unlimited resources/freedom, advocating for ambitious creative risks rather than just fiscal prudence.

Skepticism of current plans/direction: Implying recent strategy drift led to failures, wanting a return tobasics that made early movies so beloved.

Optimism for potential future: Tone is one of hope that Marvel can regain past glories with right leadership, not pronouncing the franchise doomed.

In summary, the perspective presented can be characterized as an engaged, passionate fan's idealistic creative vision for Marvel - criticizing respectfully from a place of love for the universe, rather than detached or antagonistic analysis. The goal seems to advocate constructively for maximizing future storytelling quality and audience enthusiasm.

Based on the style and content of the document, here is my analysis of the likely personality type of the author:

Idealist/visionary - They see possibilities and propose ambitious, big-picture changes to optimize long-term creative potential.

Passionate/enthusiastic - The author clearly loves Marvel deeply and wants the absolute best, evidenced by emotion and detail in critique.

Creative/innovative - Solutions demonstrate divergent, imaginative thinking beyond standard industry practices.

Persuasive/articulate - Able to synthesize vast knowledge and advocate coherently for their reformed vision.

Analytical/detail-oriented - Supports points by precisely referencing specific MCU elements and story decisions.

Constructive/solutions-focused - Goal seems to improve Marvel rather than just criticize; offers a path forward.

Leader/initiator type - Envisions self in top creative role making bold moves, not staying stationary.

Overall, these tendencies suggest a personality tending toward traits like extraversion, intuition, thinking and judging on the Myers-Briggs scale - someone energized by conceptualizing innovative improvements and advocating them persuasively to enact change. A visionary Idealist/ENTJ type best captures the apparent attributes.

Here is an evaluation of the quality of reasoning presented in the document:

Provides specific examples and evidence from past MCU works to support many claims about what has worked/not worked creatively. This gives arguments more factual basis.

Clearly lays out a full vision for reform with 12 numbered action items, giving it structural logic and comprehensive quality rather than vague assertions.

Qualifies some statements with reasonable caveats about flexibility and openness to new ideas, showing awareness of complexity.

Makes intuitive rationales for why proposed changes could have intended effects, like boosting demand through reduced output or focusing resources.

However, some arguments could be strengthened by addressing alternative views more directly or providing additional evidence from film/biz studies.

Limited acknowledgment of potential difficulties or unintended consequences of ambitious proposals being put into practice.

Reasoning is strongest when sticking to creative/storytelling aspects versus some industry/financial claims with unknown variables.

Overall, while passionately argued from a perspective of expertise, the quality of reasoning is good but could be improved by more directly grappling with counterarguments, acknowledging complexity, and providing broader evidence/data to support some conclusions presented as fact. The vision is cogently laid out but its practical feasibility relies on some logical leaps.

Here are some potential logical fallacies present in the document:

Argument from inconsistent premises: The author argues both for being less restricted by rigid future plans but also says Marvel should "call their shot" with 5-7 year game plans, which seems internally inconsistent.

Slippery slope: It argues reshoots have become overused creative crutch, implying this will inevitably lead to declining quality, without proving that logical step.

Anecdotal evidence: Cites one critic/audience-disliked film as proof reshoots don't work, without broader evidence this strategy won't ever succeed.

Hasty generalization: Suggests quality issues are due to overproduction while only citing specific recent movies as evidence without a larger sample.

Appeal to authority: Proposes having actors/filmmakers involved in "rewatch week" as if their subjective views would determine flaws/strengths objectively.

False dichotomy: Acting as if a creative vs marketing focus is an either/or choice when there may be balance or middle grounds.

Overgeneralization: Assumes fan dissatisfaction means the Multiverse hasn't been fully leveraged yet, when individual projects' quality and audience reception vary.

While providing impassioned perspective, the author's arguments could be strengthened by addressing some of these potential logical inconsistencies and gaps in evidence/reasoning. The perspectives advocated may ultimately be reasonable but aren't proven absolutely or exhaustively through the methods of logic and argumentation presented here.

Here is an evaluation of the document based on common criteria for entertainment commentary/criticism genre:

Knowledge/Expertise of Subject Matter: The speaker clearly has in-depth knowledge of the MCU movies, shows and storylines, demonstrating expertise in referencing and analyzing specific creative choices.

Persuasiveness of Arguments: Tost points are well-supported by providing examples from MCU works and logical reasoning. A few arguments could be stronger (e.g. budget section).

Engagement with Audience: Informal, conversational tone keeps it engaging. Imagining "running Marvel" invites audience participation over dry critique.

Creativity/Originality of Perspective: While drawing on common fan critiques, synthesizing all into a cohesive vision for change shows creative thought beyond routine reactions.

Structure and Organization: Clear introduction, body organized by numbered proposals, conclusion thanking sponsor - flows well for listeners/viewers.

Quality of Writing: Writing is clear and accessible without being simplistic. Able to tackle complex creative/business topics understandably.

Entertainment/Enjoyability Factor: Passionately presented critique should appeal strongly to fellow MCU fans seeking more engaging discussion of their interest.

In summary, the document demonstrates strong knowledge of its subject and presents its critique in an entertaining, engaging and well-structured manner that invites thoughtful discussion - scoring highly based on this genre's typical evaluation criteria.

Here are some ways the document could be improved:

Cite additional evidence/data to strengthen some claims, like box office trends or surveys of fan opinion.

Directly address potential counterarguments or limitations to proposals more thoroughly.

Qualify some definitive statements as opinions rather than presented as irrefutable facts.

Provide more context on the current MCU situation beyond just citing recent projects.

Suggest metrics for evaluating success of changes implemented to provide accountability.

Consider including a section on stakeholder buy-in/realistic implementation challenges.

Structure some sections with more focused subheadings for easier digestion.

Lighten the criticism in places with acknowledgement of past successes too.

Proofread for typos, formatting or structural consistency throughout.

Consider a conclusion that reaffirms vision rather than just thanking sponsor.

Include references/citations to allow verification of some references made.

Overall, while passionately argued, strengthening logical reasoning, adding nuance, qualifying statements and tightening structure/flow would help make the proposals even more persuasive and solution-oriented for stakeholders.

gataigWd88DwWhEih1FU

[littlered454]

Why I think Taylor will *not* put 123 LGB in Delicate TV

So, as we all know, taylor will be releasing reputation tv, most likely after 1989. And a lot of people have been hoping she will add the iconic 123, LGB. But i don't think she's going to do that. Taylor thinks long and hard about what she does. She probably knows that a lot of fans do NOT want her to add the 123lgb. This means if she does add it, then a lot of people will not listen to Taylor's version. the ultimate goal is for scooter braun to stop making money off of her. I believe she will not add it in delicate tv, but she will make a concert edition which has the 123lgb in it. thank u for coming to my ted talk.

[meiishu]

i also really love that the actor who played jordie really just embodied jesper energy in all of the flashbacks. Its 100 percent intentional and really compares jesper to jordie to the viewer hes so talented for that

[knowitallcorner]

बचपन के आम GAMES जिनके पीछे चुपी है डरावनी हकीकत | The Grim Reality of Childhood Games

[enthusispastic]

Did you guys know that they made a whole musical about the neighborhood watch guy from Nerdy Prudes Must Die??? It's like, pretty good too

[pekoposting]

natsuki and fumiko for @the-only-teruteru-fan's contest!

(i love how with kuzupeko fankids the gene pool is often so evenly split, like no dominant or submissive genes, just 50/50. fuyuhiko and peko would be so happy)

edit: it is too late but. recessive genes.

[forgetyoursingalongsandlullabies]

I’m thinking about the TMA S4 Q&A where Alex asks Jonny “Who knew that Jon liked Martin first, Jon or Martin?” And Jonny answers “Georgie”. I’ve already made my statement on Georgie knowing Jon had feelings for Martin before Jon did. My current thought is that this particular question was one that Alex himself asked Jonny, it wasn’t one of the Q&A questions asked by the audience which means to Alex’s mind there is a world in which Martin knew Jon had feelings for him before Jon even knew. And to be honest that would make so much sense as to why Martin put up with Jon’s shitty behavior towards him for so long and stayed so loyal to him. Like yeah the man definitely has a humiliation/degradation kink or something but also maybe he knew there was something there and just knew he needed to nurture it.

I’m on record saying Jon developed feelings for Martin in season 2 but I also think it is possible that Jon thought Martin was at least very cute upon first laying eyes on him. I think in season 1 Jon tries very hard to be a professional and masked his uncertainty and fear with arrogance and condescension. Ordinarily Jon would think it is unprofessional to talk shit about his assistant on tape even if he doesn’t like him, except that Jon is actively working to not like Martin and the best way to convince yourself of something is to keep saying it out loud. On Martin’s first day in the archives Jon saw this sweet man chasing a dog and first thought ‘Oh no he’s an idiot and I have to be his boss’ but he also thought ‘Oh no he’s cute and I have to be his boss’ so he takes that initial disapproval and dials it up to 10 and just rolls with it to mask and dilute the moment when he thought Martin was a cutie patootie and try to never have that thought again. But we all know that Martin is a lot more perceptive than he lets on and is also a manipulative son of a bitch. Jon is not an amazing liar and maybe Martin saw some part of Jon protesting a little much and thought oh yeah this guy is into me and Martin developed his mild S1 crush. By the time Martin had his first encounter with Jane Prentiss he had let go of the inkling that Jon might like him too and thought Jon actually does hate him but when Jon offers to let Martin stay in the archives to protect him Martin is just kind of like Oh it’s on. So going forward from the moment Jon has Martin move into the archives Martin is flirtier and bolder with Jon.

Through season 2 when Jon is obviously going crazy with paranoia Martin just pushes himself in closer to Jon. First of all he gifts the man the ashes of his enemy as if that’s normal! But also Martin brings Jon tea and hovers around him during lunch and talks to him casually and kindly when nobody else does and makes it Jon’s idea to go to lunch with him even though Jon is supposed to be suspicious of him. He nurtures Jon the way someone would a rescue cat, being kind through the hissing and scratching until you get slow blinks from them and they nervously make sure you’re sitting there to guard them while they eat.

By season 3 when Daisy is interrogating Martin she tells him that everyone she’s spoken to tells her that Jon and Martin are close. Just how did that happen to the extent that any given person at the institute who is asked would say so, at a time when for all intents and purposes Jon was actually pushing away everyone else who knew him? Martin was working hard and he knew what he was doing and he also knew it wasn’t a lost cause. To digress just a moment, when my mom was first dating my stepdad (whom she has now been happily married to for 20 years) he was being kind of noncommittal and on-again-off-again but she would say to me all the time “He loves me he just doesn’t know it yet.” And me being 7 I thought she was crazy but she was right! And honestly in this theoretical world this is exactly how Martin approached things.

All of seasons 3 and 4 for Martin were simple acts of faith, love and loyalty. That charged conversation in MAG 102 that I am OBSESSED with gains quite a lot with the added subtext that Martin has known Jon has feelings for him for a while and now Jon is also starting to realize it too and maybe Martin knows Jon knows! In season 4 when Martin is pushing Jon away with a stick it makes so much sense that he knows Jon has feelings for him because he knows that he has to work hard to keep Jon away. If he thought it was just about Jon wanting information from him he might have approached things differently but he actually took steps to make sure Jon was getting information from him by leaving Jon tapes. He just knew that Jon would pull him too far away from The Lonely which he was now committed to. Like, if your sort of ex-boss sort of friend wants to talk to you sometimes I don’t think that’s going to stop anyone from being lonely but Martin for sure knew by S4 that if he let Jon in, The Lonely plot would be done for. Not only would Peter’s plans be shot because Martin would commit himself to being with Jon and Jon would fully reciprocate but also Peter would definitely take it out on Jon. When Jon pulled Martin from The Lonely I don’t think it would have been enough for Jon to love Martin and also for Martin to love Jon, I think Martin had to know that Jon loved him. So when Martin said that Jon didn’t need him he probably did believe that but he also knew that Jon loves him already so being able to really See Jon just reminded him of what he already knew.

I love this possibility and in fact I now fully do believe that Martin knew Jon loved him back by S4.